Texas Tech Law Expert Available for Comment on SCOTUS-Hobby Lobby Decision

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, the biggest
challenge to date of President Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, the biggest
challenge to date of President Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.

At issue is whether for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby can seek exemption based
on religious beliefs from complying with the ACA’s requirement that all companies
that offer health insurance to their employees must provide specific benefits, including
birth control.

Hobby Lobby’s argument is that their religious beliefs are counter to what the ACA
requires as they believe certain types of birth control terminate pregnancies rather
than prevent them.

Pitch

Jennifer Bard, professor in the Texas Tech School of Law, director of the Texas Tech
Law Health Law Program and J.D./M.D Dual Degree Program, and adjunct associate professor
in the department of psychiatry at the Texas Tech School of Medicine, Texas Tech University,
(806) 834-1950 or jennifer.bard@ttu.edu.

Quotes

“It is likely that this decision will address … the limits of a law passed by Congress
in 1993 to overrule an earlier Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith,
holding that so long as a law passed by the federal government ‘applied to everyone,’
everyone was required to follow it even if it interfered with their sincerely held
religious beliefs.”

“What the Affordable Care Act did was set standards for insurance just like there
are standards for food and drug products. The effect is there are no ‘junk’ plans.
Every health insurance plan has to cover 10 essential benefits including vaccinations,
annual exams, contraception and pregnancy costs.”

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) essentially reverses Employment Division
v. Smith by stating that even if a law applies to everyone, if it substantially burdens
anyone’s sincerely held religious beliefs, the government has to show a compelling
reason for the law and has to show that the law is the least restrictive way of achieving
the law’s goals.”

“Until now, there has never been a case where the ‘company’ had religious beliefs."

Expert

Jennifer Bard, professor in the Texas Tech School of Law and adjunct associate professor
in the department of psychiatry at the Texas Tech School of Medicine, Texas Tech University,
(806) 834-1950 or jennifer.bard@ttu.edu.